I like that some users have been motivated to talk about the issue, but don't think it's taking the correct path. Fairness is often mentioned, but rarely if ever balance. I understand that pos tips the balance, but not just with post earnings, which seems to be the only issue being addressed.
Might I ask, if it's the will of the community to do away with the downvote, why hasn't it happened? First off, I personally am glad it didn't happen, because the downvote itself isn't the issue and there are positives for it. As a matter of fact, it's NOT utilized here enough.
Did I just lose you! Well bare with me...
In our system we ONLY have a downvote on posts. This affects both 'potential' earnings and reputation. Considering that your stake and reputation determines your vote weight for governance as well, why don't we have the option to downvote for Witnesses and Proposals?
While I think voting on posts in general needs to be rethought, I don't think downvotes need to be removed. On the contrary, they need to be added to Witness elections and Proposals as well.
I think this would take Hive a long way towards decentralization and leveling the playing field a bit, so the choices are that of the community and not of the few. Collectively all the stake below the level of the Whale is powerful enough to move the platform forward by the collective will.
By adding the downvote to both witnesses and proposals, even if they gain enough stake to cross the necessary thresholds, the community can rally to push them back below it if they please. This has to be done on layer 1 though and so would any tweaks to voting itself.
As for second layers being the answer? Partially, but as long as I can use another frontend to counteract the features or lack of them on this particular frontend, for example, what has it really addressed? The same goes for governance as well. Governance is set on layer 1, so really affected by layer 2 applications.
I hope to see more balance in this discussion, because it tends to mostly be the followers of the author chiming in and an echo chamber will never truly get to the heart of the issue.
Just thought I'd mention that there is a return proposal amongst the proposals. What it does is set a monetary bar over which proposals must reach before they are accepted. It's sort of a blanket downvote for all proposals.
It's not exactly what you are talking about, but it does vote against all proposals, so it does some of what you seek.
Right, it isn't. I voted for the return proposal long ago, because it's the best we have. I'm for keeping the Return Proposal in place while also adding downvotes.
I am all for experimentation and would welcome experiments with downvotes for proposals and witnesses - though I think it can get messy and easily implemented in a bad way. We basically need more competition for coding development of the system because currently, despite their seemingly good nature, there is only one team developing the core of the system - when there could be many competing for new features and associated rewards.
Balance is accurately defined as 'no part or aspect overpowering any other' - the fine points of how that plays out in a free will world with limited resources can be challenging.
I have not suggested removing downvotes and haven't said it is the will of the community to do so. However, Blurt was created for that purpose and we now have the vyb layer 2 token on hive that is challenging the POB token and which also removes downvotes. It is all an experiment and it may work out better or worse. I am exciting to find out.
I think downvoting/upvoting can be dramatically adjusted just by tweaking the existing weightings, without needing to fix it by adding downvotes to proposals and governance - however, doing so may actually shift the dynamic sufficiently that things improve anyway - we won't know without doing it.
Layer 2 tokens can have their own reward pool that is independent of layer 1, so it doesn't matter what people do on layer 1 if all your tokens are in a layer 2 space that your downvoters don't operate in or effect. Front ends can be customised to deliver just about whatever experience their community wants.
I have repeatedly seen 'the other side' engage in communication with me until I press on raw nerves for them and they basically go silent.
I agree with most of what you say and only partially in a few areas. The main being that second layer rewards are even close to 1st layer rewards. Which is part of the reason I said 2nd layer apps cannot fully address the issues.
The amount of money in layer 2 tokens will increase once layer 2 evolves and becomes more tailored to the needs of communities. Layer 2 requires organisation and social activity to build it - people need to work together, there is no other way for it to succeed - there is not 'someone else' to do it for you on Layer 2 a lot of the time. It may be the case that funds in Layer 1 dry up quite quickly as Layer 2 sites gain traction, reach, exposure and traffic.
Maybe, but I don't see it happening. As for the forks and layer 2's without the downvote? I don't see them as the answer, so won't use them. Blurt sucks and pob/vyb are just redundancies that I see as a bandaid over a ruptured artery. Vyb is going to centralized moderation, so those wanting decentralization aren't going to bother with it. I won't be...
By the way, your support and use of this tribe implies you are for eliminating the dv.
As I have already stated, I am for experimentation. It is from experimentation that we learn what works best and why. It may be that the ultimately best format for Hive or Hive communities is one that we haven't thought of yet - but it might not be apparent until experiments are completed.
Hive is quite a complicated system that reaches into human psychology, economics, tech and just about everywhere else. Since each person is unique, it is not really possible for me to know whether a community that doesn't have downvotes will thrive or not on Hive.. I can see how it could and I also see the concerns about why it might not. Ultimately, the point of layer 2 for me is that people are free to experiment and create voluntarily as they prefer. Provided they are not committing fraud or harming people in other ways, I only see benefits from the experiments in the long term.
That is a fine argument. I could have sworn I read a proposal about it in the last week. Do you know of what I'm speaking?
I do not. I've commented this a couple times this week and have mentioned it to blocktrades in the past when he compromised by saying decaying votes would be something he'd be willing to do.
Oh, I commented on a proposal post yesterday saying this is a better option than just changing the documentation making it clear that downvotes are only used in one setting here.
The proposal is not about this particular idea.